Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Vimy Ridge


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Vimy Ridge

 * Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a thorough and comprehensive review of the battle and complements content of the Battle of Arras very well. A great deal of improvement has been made over the past year. The battle itself has strong Canadian symbolic importance and as a result it would be beneficial to improve to FA in time for the battle's anniversary in April. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - (this version)
 * No disambigs, but one external link problem (detailed below)
 * Ref 84 needs a (subscription needed)
 * replaced subscription citation with a source by Wineguard ✅
 * Can ref 35 be moved to the bibliography and formatted like the rest of the books? ✅
 * Cheers, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  14:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As my comments are likely to be quite lengthy and (hopefully) thorough, I have split mine off into a separate sub-section. most of these comments are intended as well with eventual FAC in mind. At the moment, I am Neutral leaning towards Oppose, based mostly on criterion A2.
 * Comments from Cam

General
 * Throughout the references (and indeed the article), I'm perceiving a tendency to focus much more on the actions of the CC as opposed to the G6A throughout the battle. Most, if not all, of the sources are of Anglo-Canadian origin.  As such, I think that the article needs to take a slightly broader perspective.  I know that Erich Ludendorff's war memoirs do go into quite a bit of detail with regards to the Battle of Arras, see if you can find them.
 * If at all possible I'd like to avoid the use of memoirs such as Ludendorff's. A quality perspective is not necessarily based on nationality. Jack Sheldon's The German Army on Vimy Ridge 1914 - 1917 is supposedly a thorough, fascinating and impressive read. He's written a whole series of books examining the German side in various WWI battles and is starting to become an established expert on the subject. If I had access to this book the whole German side would be properly and fairly evenly represented, as it should be. But alas, getting a hold of a copy in Canada is impossible. SO if you anyone knows someone with a copy, and can scan the 1917 section, I could do the work. Short of that, getting substantial German improvement is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible. Labattblueboy (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Battle of Vimy Ridge 1917 By Jack Sheldon and Nigel Cave might equally hold a good examination of the German side but I don't know for certain. However I don't have access to it either. Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know just the people to ping on this one. Cam (Chat) 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Along similar lines, the "Assault Preparations" section is way too much Canadian and British, not enough German. How extensive were the German tunelling systems? Did the Germans attempt any trench raids? How extensive were German artillery positions? How "formidable" (or lack thereof) were German defenses? There is not enough of an information balance in this section
 * Doing my best to try to better incorporate the German side. I hope to have a bit of help in this department as I don't have access to the proper books. Labattblueboy (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, the Attack section doesn't focus sufficiently on Germany. Did any of their regiments shift throughout the battle? How did German high command react on 9 April? Were reinforcements sent?

All the best in taking the article forward. Correct the issues noted above, and you'll have my full support. Cam (Chat) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments: coupled with a separate header for to set up the footnote.
 * A very nice article, sources look good and the prose is almost there&mdash;just a little polish here and there is needed.
 * In the "Background" section, the line about the Germans having captured several British mine craters could probably use a footnote explaining what they are, and why they were worth capturing. Us MILHIST types would probably understand why they would be useful, but the average reader might not. You can use
 * I have added a supplementary explanation to note # 15 and expanded a bit of the text in the background to hopefully improve the level of understanding. Please let me know if this is satisfactory. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

*WP:ENGVAR issue; does Canadian English use -ize or -ise? There's an "emphasized" in the "Tactical plan" section that may need to be fixed.
 * Canadian spelling normally employs -ize. I do notice however that there is some incosistencies in the article with regards to canadian/british vs. american spelling. This will need to be fixed. Labattblueboy (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left "fuze" although I'm not sure if it should be "fuse" or "fuze". I only have french-english dictionaries around, not those fancy canadian ones.
 * Looks good. I dropped a note at WT:MILHIST for some help for fuse/fuze, I'm sure someone will give us a hand with that one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * David Underdown says that, technically speaking, "fuze" is more correct for "anything more complicated than a slow-match or powder trail". Or at least that's the impression he's under. Parsecboy (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lovely, so I guess we can consider this point fully addressed now.✅ Labattblueboy (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the "Battle section", the lines about the battalion CO from 4th ID requesting that some portions of the German trench be spared destruction needs some rewording to avoid repetitiveness. I would suggest changing "Undestroyed machine-gun nests" to "The machine-gun nests in these sections of the German line..." or something similar.
 * Went with suggested change ✅

Once these and the issues raised by Cam above have been fixed, I'll be happy to support. Parsecboy (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, very nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. A very good article. I've fixed some minor flaws, and the only suggestions I have are moving some images to the left (8 on the right, 5 on the left as it is), and it'd be nice to mention if the memorial was affected by WWII at all - doesn't really seem like something they'd like, but if they did leave it alone just ignore this. – Joe N  utter  21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - this article has improved immensely over the last two weeks, and is now at what can be considered an A-Class level. The coverage issues have been significantly minimized, though they are still there and should be addressed before an eventual FAC. That said, those issues do not disqualify it from being A-level. All the best, and good luck! Cam (Chat) 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Comments:
 * Second paragraph in "Battle in the air" section needs a citation. Several other paragraphs end without citations, leaving dangling, uncited text.
 * Para-end citation added for air section. 2 more para citations added in other areas. ✅
 * I think that the paragraph under "Belligerents" concerning the German forces should be moved to the "German defences" sub-section in the "Assault preparations" section and the paragraph concerning the Canadian divisions' attack plans should be moved to the "Tactical plan" section.
 * had been done in lines of "Operation Windsor, Battle of Verrieres Ridge, Operation Varsity, or Moro River Campaign" as suggested during this review. Will leave as is and at FAC this can be re-exanimed. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that for every distance or measurement stated in the English system the metric equivalent has to be provided in paretheses, but I don't know if the same holds true if the article uses metric by default throughout.
 * The sources themselves were all in yards, hence the extensive use of convert template. It was more so to respect the sources used than anything else. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice touch to include the significant decorations awarded to both sides to help keep it NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.